Verizon to launch HomeFusion LTE internet service

Do you live in a place where the cable company won't come by to offer you their internet access? Is your home located where the telephone company can't give you their DSL service? Then Verizon Wireless might just be able to fix you up with a fast wireless internet connection - but be prepared to pay a lot for it.

Starting on Thursday, Verizon will launch HomeFusion, a new Internet service designed specifically for rural homes and locations where normal broadband internet access isn't possible. Verizon says HomeFusion includes the installation of an antenna in a person's home, which is then linked to a router, shown above.

The antenna and router allows users inside the home to access Verizon's 4G LTE network with download speeds of around 5-12Mbps and upload speeds of 2-5Mbps. The router has support for up to four wired network connections and supports wireless connections for at least twenty devices.

Sounds good, doesn't it? Here's the kicker: the price. Users of HomeFusion have to sign up for a two year contract and choose from plans that range from $60 a month for 10GB of data, up to $120 a month for 30GB, with overage fees of $10 per GB. There's a $199.99 one time charge for equipment but installation is free.

Image via Verizon

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Valve: We're not announcing anything at E3

Next Story

TechSpot: Biggest Tech Failures of The Last 10+ Years

16 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Sounds crazy on paper, but beggars can't be choosers if they live out in the sticks and they desire hi-speed access. It's not meant for hours spent on Hulu and what not. Just enough to stay connected with the basics. I would pay for it if I were in the situation as the article describes.

este said,
This is why I will never be a Verizon customer

I'm a Verizon customer and the price I pay for what I get for cell coverage and usage is cheaper and better than any other carrier in this part of my state. They have pro's and con's like any other and I agree this fee for the usage is high and prob won't be used much but at least its a start. Issue is that many people if you just go 1 mile to my east have NOTHING... maybe dialup but even then the speeds are dependent on if a squirrel is on the line or not. But I do agree prices should come DOWN from this point or for any other wireless service not go UP which is what I bet will happen like any other service. Those of us here in the US pay way too much for broadband internet compared to other countries but much of that is cause our providers don't have the resources to replace lines that were strung up 75years ago.

A 4G speedtest from my phone just got me 17341kbps down and 4776kbps up..that's faster than my cable internet test thru the wifi! So the speeds and capability is there but yes price needs to come down.

Edited by sava700, May 3 2012, 2:07pm :

That pricing is absolutely outrageous. I take it this isn't going to go anywhere.

Data and Internet prices are out of control.

The pricing is about on par with Wireless Data around the world. Wireless is expensive and does not scale well with the limited spectrum available to share with so many users. The caps are necessary to keep usage low so that it can be shared with so many users. If everyone was streaming Netflix at once the bandwidth will come to a screeching halt (due to the spectrum available, not the backhaul). Better off using this for main Internet usage- Email, Facebook, Youtube, Work, even playable for gaming etc. and use their existing low bandwidth connections or sneakernets for large downloads that does not need to be on demand.

Simon- said,
Wireless is expensive and does not scale well with the limited spectrum available to share with so many users.
That's what I don't get. They already have a limited amount of spectrum, and unable to support all of their users. Now you want to start adding hundreds of homes in the same area?

cybertimber2008 said,
That's what I don't get. They already have a limited amount of spectrum, and unable to support all of their users. Now you want to start adding hundreds of homes in the same area?

Spectrum is the limiting factor in urban areas, where there are so many cells that you basically can't build them any closer.

In rural areas, you might have a single tower for a 5-mile radius. (That's 79 square miles!) If the tower starts getting congested, simply subdivide the cell by building additional towers. It's much cheaper to run a single backhaul line 2 miles to the new tower, than to build out hundreds of miles of cable/DSL wiring for houses.

What doesnt make sense is if you are in an area without cable or dsl then you probably wont have 4G service...

I live in a rural area that doesn't have any wired broadband connections available but does have Verizon LTE service.

I would actually consider this if it wasn't for the low caps. I am currently with a local wireless provider that is quite a bit slower but doesn't have an advertised cap and is much cheaper.

Brandon said,
What doesnt make sense is if you are in an area without cable or dsl then you probably wont have 4G service...

Cable and DSL are limited by the need to build out last-mile infrastructure.

Cell towers only need backhaul, which is much cheaper. Rural cells are much larger than urban cells, because the towers can broadcast at higher power.

Frazell Thomas said,
10GB or 30GB as primary net access... This must be a joke...

the people that are being targeted don't need much more than this... the price is WAY too high and verizon should be ashamed of themselves for taking advantage of these folks.

capr said,

the people that are being targeted don't need much more than this... the price is WAY too high and verizon should be ashamed of themselves for taking advantage of these folks.

Why don't they? They won't stream video like the rest of the nation?

I understand they might be getting gouged by Satellite companies, but I don't think their limits are realistic either.

capr said,

the people that are being targeted don't need much more than this... the price is WAY too high and verizon should be ashamed of themselves for taking advantage of these folks.


The price is "way too high" based on what? Your detailed knowledge of how much it costs to provide bandwidth to rural locations? Considering that most of these people currently pay $100+ a month for satellite service that is only slightly better than dial-up, I think they will be happy.

It will always be cheaper to provide service in populated areas. Shorter fiber runs to the backbone and higher customer count reducing the waste of unused resources help keep prices lower.

Frazell Thomas said,

I understand they might be getting gouged by Satellite companies, but I don't think their limits are realistic either.

Satellite Internet bandwidth is a severely constrained commodity.

It costs $400 million to launch a communications satellite to GEO. And satellite Internet ain't a great business to be in. Echostar, for example, makes $200 million a year -- and that's in a good year. (Last year, they barely broke even.)